Agreed on all counts. You may be wondering why I found the piece "interesting" at all. I cherry-picked the interesting bits:
evil as we experience it in the non-cinematic world -- just doesn't cut it in Hollywood anymore.: A generalization, but still a valid trend observation.
Today's evil icon is not Norman Bates but Hannibal Lecter: the psycho who is not a psycho for any reason, except for the reason that he just loves being a psycho: Pretty sure I heard (or heard of) an interview with Nolan where he said he basically thought of the Joker as the shark in Jaws.
He is described in the movie as one of those who "just want to watch the world burn." Are there such men? Conceivably. But history affords no example of them, outside of comic books and the movies, attaining the sort of power it would take actually to burn the world, or even any very significant part of it.: Very debatable (and therefore interesting). Are there real-world examples of people for whom world-burning is the the sole motivation in and of itself? Isn't there usually some other motivation (rage, sexual turn-on, politics, money, religion, fame), as twisted as it may be in all cases?
Again and again we see Mr. Ledger's Joker pulling off the most fantastically conceived acts of evil which, in real life, would require a virtual army of assistants, many of whom would have to be almost as clever as he is. Yet the movie shows us not even one. We do see the Joker lording it over some fellow criminals on a couple of occasions -- not the best way to gain their cooperation, one might have thought. And, in the bank robbery with which the film opens, he casually murders all his assistants, which is even less likely to help him with any hypothetical recruitment effort: Not that I didn't enjoy it, but if you were in the mood to be critical, this stands up pretty well. Three words though: "suspension of disbelief".
That is of course the question that must not be asked if the movie is not to drown -- as I believe it does drown -- in its own preposterousness: I wouldn't go nearly so far, but I do think it has some weaknesses. I didn't buy at all the Harvey Dent character arc, for example.
namely, yet another iteration of that favorite Hollywood trope about how the hero and the villain are really just two sides of the same coin. one person's trope is another's archetype, but still, my wife and I agreed that afterwards that we're pretty much done with the Belloq "I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light." speech. The movie did well in showing this aspect of the characters, it was when they told us this so overtly that it stumbled.
The separate film. I had Grindhouse in my Netflix queue, but then they removed it and put the separate movies in there instead. I think that became the only way to get them from Netflix, at least at the time.
Wow, thanks very much Luke, I really appreciate the kind words. I do feel guilty about neglecting Listology, both as a participant (I just can't keep up with much more than my own movie lists these days), and as a programmer (the site really needs a facelift and refactoring). It's true though that I continue to do the moderation of new users, at least, and it's nice to know that's noticed and appreciated.
As for other moderated communities, the only one I know of personally is Metafilter. They charge a one-time $5 fee for participation, and even that token amount seems to go a long way towards raising the intellectual bar. Check this out: Metafilter comments vs. YouTube comments.
Thanks! I totally agree. I went in with pretty low expectations, and had to keep checking myself: "I think I'm enjoying this. Am I? Why yes, I am! Is this really as good as I think it is? Wow, yeah, it is!"
It's an interesting problem. I've heard of 17 of Bogart's 75 movies, but I'm most familiar with only 5-8. Let's say most folks could name five Bogart movies. Jimmy Stewart comes in around 10, but he made 100 movies. Cary Grant goes around 8 for 73 (both he and Stewart also benefit from Hitchcock bumps). So lets say to even be in contention you need five movies that'll pass the 50-year test.
(Does the 50-year test mean normal people have to still recognize the movies, or fans? Does it mean, 50 years from now, you take a random survey and say "name as many George Clooney movies as you can" and the average result is that actor's score?).
I'm thinking Cusack and Washington will both come in around 3 to 5, as it stands now. Cage is probably right around there too, although he might get up into the 5 to 8 range because of the big action movies and some really fortunate roles early in his career.
There's the whole feedback loop problem too. Movies can be iconic on their own, but an iconic actor can automatically pull their top 5 to 10 movies into the future, just as a representative sample of their work.
*Knew* I saw that guy somewhere before, thank you! The Lives of Others was great, I'm glad you liked it too.
Wow, you've really pared down your lists since the last time I looked. It makes me happy to see Stranger Than Fiction pull such a high rating from you.
Hey, I like what you're doing with the arrows, although a couple of the reviews near the bottom of your "seen in 2008" list don't collapse.
Ah, gotcha, "major Listologists". I guess you have to put me somewhere given my role here, even if presence has been minimal for quite awhile now. ADHD is the best fit, you're right.
My Secret Santa mixes (which I have listed) are probably pretty representative, although I didn't do one last year so they're a bit dated.
:-) Excellent. I just checked the code and even had you stuck this in a custom genre those show up on the "recent" pages too. Forgot how my own site works! Still, having a dedicated battleground seems like a good solution.
It occurs to me (and I'm not advocating this, just noting it as a potential avenue), that if this list were moved to a custom genre (you could call it whatever you want, "special interest music", whatever) then it wouldn't appear in recent updates or pages like that. Taking that a step further, somebody could create a list called "Have All Your Beatles Fights Here" in a custom genre, and folks could have at it, and it wouldn't show up as updates on the aggregated pages. If a Beatles fight broke out on some innocent list, you could just say "take this discussion here", and point to the list.
Or, for the whole Beatles thing, I just just add a little code to Listology to filter out any comments that reference the Beatles or Scaruffi, but then folks would start spelling it B3atles, or Scaruff1, and the arms race would be on. :-)
Agreed on all counts. You may be wondering why I found the piece "interesting" at all. I cherry-picked the interesting bits:
evil as we experience it in the non-cinematic world -- just doesn't cut it in Hollywood anymore.: A generalization, but still a valid trend observation.
Today's evil icon is not Norman Bates but Hannibal Lecter: the psycho who is not a psycho for any reason, except for the reason that he just loves being a psycho: Pretty sure I heard (or heard of) an interview with Nolan where he said he basically thought of the Joker as the shark in Jaws.
He is described in the movie as one of those who "just want to watch the world burn." Are there such men? Conceivably. But history affords no example of them, outside of comic books and the movies, attaining the sort of power it would take actually to burn the world, or even any very significant part of it.: Very debatable (and therefore interesting). Are there real-world examples of people for whom world-burning is the the sole motivation in and of itself? Isn't there usually some other motivation (rage, sexual turn-on, politics, money, religion, fame), as twisted as it may be in all cases?
Again and again we see Mr. Ledger's Joker pulling off the most fantastically conceived acts of evil which, in real life, would require a virtual army of assistants, many of whom would have to be almost as clever as he is. Yet the movie shows us not even one. We do see the Joker lording it over some fellow criminals on a couple of occasions -- not the best way to gain their cooperation, one might have thought. And, in the bank robbery with which the film opens, he casually murders all his assistants, which is even less likely to help him with any hypothetical recruitment effort: Not that I didn't enjoy it, but if you were in the mood to be critical, this stands up pretty well. Three words though: "suspension of disbelief".
That is of course the question that must not be asked if the movie is not to drown -- as I believe it does drown -- in its own preposterousness: I wouldn't go nearly so far, but I do think it has some weaknesses. I didn't buy at all the Harvey Dent character arc, for example.
namely, yet another iteration of that favorite Hollywood trope about how the hero and the villain are really just two sides of the same coin. one person's trope is another's archetype, but still, my wife and I agreed that afterwards that we're pretty much done with the Belloq "I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light." speech. The movie did well in showing this aspect of the characters, it was when they told us this so overtly that it stumbled.
Interesting, I didn't know that! Does seem the better choice.
Yeah, me too, that must have been intentional on the filmmaker's part. Neat trick.
Oh my yes. Very disappointing, given the cast.
The separate film. I had Grindhouse in my Netflix queue, but then they removed it and put the separate movies in there instead. I think that became the only way to get them from Netflix, at least at the time.
Yup, that's the one.
Wow, thanks very much Luke, I really appreciate the kind words. I do feel guilty about neglecting Listology, both as a participant (I just can't keep up with much more than my own movie lists these days), and as a programmer (the site really needs a facelift and refactoring). It's true though that I continue to do the moderation of new users, at least, and it's nice to know that's noticed and appreciated.
As for other moderated communities, the only one I know of personally is Metafilter. They charge a one-time $5 fee for participation, and even that token amount seems to go a long way towards raising the intellectual bar. Check this out: Metafilter comments vs. YouTube comments.
Hmm. I'm thinking personal reaction. The cinematography is quite good, even striking, but I don't have one scene in particular that leapt out at me.
Thanks! I totally agree. I went in with pretty low expectations, and had to keep checking myself: "I think I'm enjoying this. Am I? Why yes, I am! Is this really as good as I think it is? Wow, yeah, it is!"
:-) Didn't care for the rest, eh?
It's an interesting problem. I've heard of 17 of Bogart's 75 movies, but I'm most familiar with only 5-8. Let's say most folks could name five Bogart movies. Jimmy Stewart comes in around 10, but he made 100 movies. Cary Grant goes around 8 for 73 (both he and Stewart also benefit from Hitchcock bumps). So lets say to even be in contention you need five movies that'll pass the 50-year test.
(Does the 50-year test mean normal people have to still recognize the movies, or fans? Does it mean, 50 years from now, you take a random survey and say "name as many George Clooney movies as you can" and the average result is that actor's score?).
I'm thinking Cusack and Washington will both come in around 3 to 5, as it stands now. Cage is probably right around there too, although he might get up into the 5 to 8 range because of the big action movies and some really fortunate roles early in his career.
There's the whole feedback loop problem too. Movies can be iconic on their own, but an iconic actor can automatically pull their top 5 to 10 movies into the future, just as a representative sample of their work.
*Knew* I saw that guy somewhere before, thank you! The Lives of Others was great, I'm glad you liked it too.
Wow, you've really pared down your lists since the last time I looked. It makes me happy to see Stranger Than Fiction pull such a high rating from you.
Hey, I like what you're doing with the arrows, although a couple of the reviews near the bottom of your "seen in 2008" list don't collapse.
Ah, gotcha, "major Listologists". I guess you have to put me somewhere given my role here, even if presence has been minimal for quite awhile now. ADHD is the best fit, you're right.
My Secret Santa mixes (which I have listed) are probably pretty representative, although I didn't do one last year so they're a bit dated.
:-) Excellent. I just checked the code and even had you stuck this in a custom genre those show up on the "recent" pages too. Forgot how my own site works! Still, having a dedicated battleground seems like a good solution.
It occurs to me (and I'm not advocating this, just noting it as a potential avenue), that if this list were moved to a custom genre (you could call it whatever you want, "special interest music", whatever) then it wouldn't appear in recent updates or pages like that. Taking that a step further, somebody could create a list called "Have All Your Beatles Fights Here" in a custom genre, and folks could have at it, and it wouldn't show up as updates on the aggregated pages. If a Beatles fight broke out on some innocent list, you could just say "take this discussion here", and point to the list.
Or, for the whole Beatles thing, I just just add a little code to Listology to filter out any comments that reference the Beatles or Scaruffi, but then folks would start spelling it B3atles, or Scaruff1, and the arms race would be on. :-)